Isn’t the premise that this analogy extends to academia by “seeing what works and what doesn’t” to produce the most publications to the point where the majority of papers are derivative? While the iteration of the individual may not be quicker, the large increase in the number of publications seems to be indicative of the field iterating quicker.

E.g., the artist takes a big risk to produce a sound that diverges from “what works” just like a scientist takes a big risk to diverge from well-worn theory that has produced past publication fodder.